"Energising", "unelectable" and "a shambles": these words and more were flung across the debating chamber, in the first of the Union’s Varsity debates last Tuesday night.

Of course, they were describing Jeremy Corbyn in debate of a divisive motion: "This house welcomes Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition." The energy and contention that surrounds Corbyn was evident in the chamber, with one student remarking: "I’ve heard a lot, I don’t know much…I’ve come to see what all the fuss is about."

Cambridge headed up the proposition, focusing on Corbyn’s effective yet refreshing qualities as leader. His perception was key, viewed as ordinary, down to earth and "not a career politician". Politically, Corbyn’s new kind of politics provided an effective method to scrutinise the government, and a real choice in the face of austerity.

Interestingly neither side looked to discredit or mock Corbyn’s policies. In fact, the opposition indicated they were partial to a fair few of them, including Corbyn’s controversial stance on NATO. Arguments on both sides centred on his public perception, which would go on either to ‘galvanise’ the public, or render Corbyn unelectable and the Labour Party in turmoil.

This approach was definitely tailored to an audience that broadly favoured Corbyn, proven to be the case by the votes before the debate: 62 percent in favour of the motion, 24 percent opposed, 14 percent in abstention. In fact, it seemed that the overarching question the floor were looking for an answer to was: Should we be excited about Corbyn’s rise, heralding a new era for politics, or are we hammering the final nail into the credible left-wing coffin?

Oxford’s opposition made a very convincing case for a yes, claiming that Corbyn’s unelectable policies would be unable to challenge the Conservatives. His shambolic leadership and provocative policies would leave Labour divided, giving way to the advance of poverty and inequality under the Tories. In strong rebuttal of the idea of Corbyn’s winning personality, he was described as a successful "oppositional politician", but an ineffective leader of a credible party.

Following the debate, still in the majority were those welcoming Corbyn as the new leader of the opposition, though only by a small margin: 46 percent in favour, 40 percent opposed, and 14 in abstention. Overall, the victory was still with the proposition, Cambridge.

However, the opposition’s case, particularly in their opening speech, articulated some problems with Corbyn that were difficult to refute. With a combination of incisive analysis of his real political aptitude, and some hard data on public opinion, Corbyn’s real prospects for election weren’t looking good.

Might it be that a significant number of students came to the debate looking for adequate confirmation of Corbyn’s exciting potential, but instead were met with some difficult realities?

Nevertheless, the greater number of Cambridge students still welcomed Corbyn as leader of the opposition. Perhaps his dynamic policies and challenge to parliamentary style can provide some new tricks in an old game.